I'm not reading unsupported statements, I'm reading about the results of research that was conducted. "Both research teams used instruments called ion microprobes to date and analyze the zircon crystals, which often contain uranium, rare earth elements and other impurities. Uranium decays to lead at a known rate. Uranium-lead ratios in the zircons showed they formed as early as 4.4 billion to 4.3 billion years ago when they crystallized in molten granite"

OK, so how do they know what the original saturation of the "uraniam, rare earth elements and other impurities" were?

And how do they know that the present "known rate" has always been the same?

Exactly what I would have asked. I like to use the analogy of a burning candle.

You walk into a room and see a burning candle. Now you can measure how much of the candle is left and how much wax melts each minute, however how from these two things can you determine how long it has been burning for? In order to claim as much you need to know the initial height of the candle so then you can apply the rate of wax melted per minute in order to give an estimate of time. This is the same in that we do not know the initial amount of radioisotopes in the item hence radioactive dating simply is debunked on this basis alone. (We do not know the initial amount since we were not there to take a sample at the beginning of the universe, or the formation of the "ancient" rocks...)

However there is a way from the candle to work out how long it has been burning and that is to get an estimate of the wax that has been melted and then apply that retrospectively with the rate to see how long it would have taken to melt the wax that is presently melted... Now this is what the RATE team has done with helium in zircon crystals. Helium is a byproduct of uranium decay, (so in my analogy it is the byproduct that is the melted candle wax), and from this data the age of the earth is around 6000 years...

Read the book I mentioned, "thousands not millions" it is based on this evidence.

Sweitzers work has been twisted and misrepresented as she openly says this

Oh, it has been twisted an misrepresented because she "says this".

She is an evolutionist! What do you expect her to say?

Schweitzer offered hypotheses for how the tissue could have survived so long.

That illustrates perfectly how difficult evolution is to falsify - a new hypotheses can be always thrown in at the last minute to save the day. Anything that satisfies the demands of the worldview will do.

That illustrates perfectly how difficult evolution is to falsify - a new hypotheses can be always thrown in at the last minute to save the day. Anything that satisfies the demands of the worldview will do.

That illustrates perfectly how difficult evolution is to falsify - a new hypotheses can be always thrown in at the last minute to save the day. Anything that satisfies the demands of the worldview will do.

More from her... "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” She makes total sense to me.

More from her... "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” She makes total sense to me.

And your point? As was said before, just because she says X doesn't mean anything...

The fact remains that living tissue and proteins have been found belonging to dinosaurs in bones that should not contain them. This is a huge contradiction and exposes how weak the data is for an old earth.

Further any comments on the evidence I presented by the RATE team, (or will you ignore it like my Biochemical evidence... )

EDIT: I believe there is a passage in the Bible asking believers to love God with all their heart, soul and MIND. Hence having evidence of God doesn't detract from having faith at all. It expresses how we can love God with our Mind.

And your point? As was said before, just because she says X doesn't mean anything...

The fact remains that living tissue and proteins have been found belonging to dinosaurs in bones that should not contain them. This is a huge contradiction and exposes how weak the data is for an old earth.

Further any comments on the evidence I presented by the RATE team, (or will you ignore it like my Biochemical evidence... )

EDIT: I believe there is a passage in the Bible asking believers to love God with all their heart, soul and MIND. Hence having evidence of God doesn't detract from having faith at all. It expresses how we can love God with our Mind.

As I said I'm not well studied enough to comment on your "biochemical evidence" yet so I'm not ignoring you. After Schweitzer's first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this at least in part. She said that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work which doesn help her credibility or give weight to what is claimed. Also note that a team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum.

As I said I'm not well studied enough to comment on your "biochemical evidence" yet so I'm not ignoring you. After Schweitzer's first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this at least in part. She said that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work which doesn help her credibility or give weight to what is claimed. Also note that a team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum.

Firstly everyone has an opinion on everything, I am asking yours for the Biochemical evidence.. Its a whole new game when a person presents evidence of which is ignored and then the claim is still made (at least indirectly) that there is no evidence... I also asked about the radiometric dating flaws and the RATE team's reasearch with Helium from Zircon crystals... (But as I predicted it was ignored)

The "pond scum" argument has long since been debunked. Soft tissue has been found in many many other fossils since the first find so the claim that it was accidentally bacteria or such is BS. Furthermore, a study was done that identified a protein in the bones that is not homologous to the bacteria claimed to inhabit the fossils so that also debunks the claim... I suggest reading up on the latest info, (even if it goes against your own beliefs).

Here is an article from 2005 citing fossil Magnolia leaves with DNA (800bp long)... (SO much for your claims earlier about no DNA being found.....). The MAX age these fossils have due to the DNA is a few 10,000 years, however it is more probable of just 10,000 years.

In a similar vein, Sykes (1991) has commented that in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolysis imply that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. In his review paper, Lindahl goes on to argue that “it seems feasible that useful DNA sequences tens of thousands of years old could be recovered, particularly if the fossil has been retained at low temperature,” giving as an example DNA from mammoth tissue thought to be 40,000 years old. So, our knowledge of DNA stability makes it seem highly improbable that this molecule could be preserved for more than a few tens of thousands of years at most. Others have noted that, "Certain physical limits seem inescapable. In approximately 50,000 years, water alone strips bases from the DNA and leads to the breakage of strands into pieces so small that no information can be retrieved from them. Oxygen also contributes to the destruction of DNA. Even in ideal conditions–in the absence of water and oxygen and at low temperature–background radiation must finally erase all genetic information," 27

EDIT: I just noticed I'm the one giving the evidence here, care to cite some papers claiming pond scum was the cause

Anyone can claim anything. Claims don't prove it action does. We get people here all the time that like to join up under false worldviews, it is soon clear during their debates (their actions) they are not what they claimed to be. So nice try.

You realize tha your not getting the complete picture from just reading the abstracts right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as any good skeptic knows. The finding of intact collagen protein in dinosaur fossils is certainly an extraordinary claim, and the finding of hemoglobin is even more stunning. Creationists are shooting themselves in the foot by avoiding the contamination issue.

Anyone can claim anything. Claims don't prove it action does. We get people here all the time that like to join up under false worldviews, it is soon clear during their debates (their actions) they are not what they claimed to be. So nice try.

She seems reasonable to me. At least she's keeping her work seperate from her personal religious beliefs. And she also admits the possibility of contamination existed and that more work needs o be done to come to a true conclusion..

More from her... "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” She makes total sense to me.

And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it.

You know I have come to the conclusion that you don;t listen to anyone here, It's not that you have to agree but it's like we are saying nothing and you are just promoting your agenda. So basically I consider you now a time waster. Here not to debate the issues but to ignore all that are not in support of your own so that your promotion of what you believe can look totally positive and absolute.

What you do beyond this point will determine whether you stay or go. Because these problems have been pointed out to you over and over and you continue as if you are deaf and blind. But let's be honest. The reason you don;t listen or ignore more than half of what people are saying here is because you have zero respect for anyone whom would dare to disagree with you. So for what reason would I allow you to stay here when you won't listen to the mods or admins here and all you do is waste everyone's time? And you disrespect everyone here with your comments and your ignorance on purpose.

She seems reasonable to me. At least she's keeping her work seperate from her personal religious beliefs. And she also admits the possibility of contamination existed and that more work needs o be done to come to a true conclusion..

As usual you did not look at the video or anything else any one provides because you would rather be ignorant. the video I provided was an update to the find. She opened several other fossils and found the same thing. So your attempt at trying to make it sound like a fluke is disproved. And now you look stupid because you prefer to be ignorant on purpose. Nice try.

Ike have you read her actual papers? "And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it". Where? Please show me where she is quoted as stating this. And as for "debating" In order for a debate to continue, there must be new points made. Otherwise, it's stagnant, and pretty much over. While there's always new discoveries being made in evolution, the same isn't true of creationism. The debate among scientists has been over for decades.. however, the public and political debate is far from over.

Ike have you read her actual papers? "And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it". Where? Please show me where she is quoted as stating this. And as for "debating" In order for a debate to continue, there must be new points made. Otherwise, it's stagnant, and pretty much over. While there's always new discoveries being made in evolution, the same isn't true of creationism. The debate among scientists has been over for decades.. however, the public and political debate is far from over.

Its stagnant when one side provides all the evidence and the other ignores them and continues on with their minor point.

Even IF we allowed you to claim that ALL the fossils that have soft tissue in them, to be called "contaminated". (Yet with the sheer amount of fossils that have been claimed t have soft tissue, it would be claiming that all the scientists are incompetent and continue to contaminate every single sample)

- DNA that was found signalling that the fossil was merely 10,000 years old at MAX- The fact that the radiometric dating process is founded on assumptions, (see my candle analogy)- The fact that the RATE team has used a superior method and have found the Earths age to about 6000 years- and the Biochemical evidence which you refuse to comment on

However if only we were so allowing, you haven't demonstrated any form of evidence for your claims about the fossils being "pond scum" and now "contaminated". I did ask you for the papers describing such hence the onus is on you to provide your evidence.

Further the only evidence you have given was debunked by the fact that the methods used, (radiometric dating) is based on assumptions leading to the claim that it is not only unreliable but intellectually dishonest.

Ike have you read her actual papers? "And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it". Where? Please show me where she is quoted as stating this. And as for "debating" In order for a debate to continue, there must be new points made. Otherwise, it's stagnant, and pretty much over. While there's always new discoveries being made in evolution, the same isn't true of creationism. The debate among scientists has been over for decades.. however, the public and political debate is far from over.

From this response it's more than clear you still don;t listen. So all I can figure is that all of this is just a game to you and truth or anything else does not matter except what you believe. So without further due in wasting everyone's time you are now banned.

Schweitzer said everyone knows soft tissue doesn't last millions of years.

She seems reasonable to me. At least she's keeping her work seperate from her personal religious beliefs. And she also admits the possibility of contamination existed and that more work needs o be done to come to a true conclusion..

They did that work and all it did was confirm existing soft tissue and a lack of contamination.

There are no "laws" of logic - there are simply rules. These rules amount to axioms. Hence logic is an arbitrary system we use for establishing the validity and truth value of a given formal argument. Please note that validity (whether or not the argument is constructed properly) and truth value (whether or not the argument is true) are two completely different things, and they are not related.

"Please test the laws of science."

You need to be very careful with this statement. What do you mean by a "scientific law?" The true laws of science are mathematical - that is, they simply describe the relationship between two variables that we have measured. Boyle's Law, for example, describes the mathematical relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas under fixed temperature. It can indeed be tested, and has been so many times with always the same result that it is considered a "law" - that is, it is always true. However, it would only take a single validated observation to the contrary to make us reject the law altogether. So the laws of science definitely can be tested. Every time we make a new observation we test the law. But after a certain (very large) number of tests, each additional test becomes trivial. Also, note that things like "natural selection" or the Theory of Evolution are not scientific laws. They are explanations.

"Please test the ability of a person to make rational choices."

This can indeed be tested, and is done so all the time by psychologists and others. Check any of the books by Michael Shermer, Robert Park, etc. We simply design experiments which demonstrate the basis upon which human beings, individualy or in groups make decisions.